In an episode of the old sit-com M*A*S*H, Col. Henry Blake consoles Hawkeye Pierce after he's lost a patient by saying, "There are two rules about war. Rule No. 1 is that young men die, and Rule No. 2 is that doctors can't change Rule No. 1."

OK, so maybe it's a stretch to compare deregulating Bylaw 13 to a show about army surgeons in the Korean War. But it is fair to say that there also are two rules about making recruiting simpler: Rule No. 1 is that recruiting in Division I athletics is as competitive as the games themselves, and Rule No. 2 is that the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet subcommittee on recruiting can't change Rule No. 1.

The eight-member group assigned the task of deregulating Bylaw 13 found that out. During the last three years, the group has worked diligently to simplify a process that touches the "level playing field" like no other. What has emerged is a five-proposal package that the Management Council will see for the first time at its meeting this month.

The proposals are:

To permit schools in all sports to make one in-person off-campus contact with a prospect beginning April 1 of the prospect's junior year in high school, and one telephone call on or after March 1 during the prospect's junior year (with subsequent calls subject to current sport-specific limitations).

To limit printed recruiting materials that can be sent to prospects to general correspondence, questionnaires, camp brochures and other nonathletics publications available to all students. Other information, such as media guides, can be posted online as a way to inform prospects about the institution, but schools would not be allowed to send printed media guides to prospects.

To allow institutions to release information an unlimited number of times about a prospect who has signed a Letter of Intent. Schools would be prohibited, however, from purchasing or receiving commercial advertising (for example, print, media, billboard) that identifies a prospect by name or picture.

To specify that videoconferencing, videophones and other direct human interaction voice exchange shall be considered a telephone call, and that all other electronically transmitted information, such as e-mail, instant messaging and faxes, shall be considered general correspondence.

To allow institutions to produce non-personalized recruiting audio/video presentations, make them available online and send them electronically to prospects.

Though the proposals do break some ground, the package could be seen as limited by people who may have expected more from a three-year review. For example, there are no proposals in the core Bylaw 13 areas of official visits, sports camps and clinics, recruiting calendars or tryouts. Would-be critics, however, would not understand what the subcommittee discovered during its work: When it comes to recruiting, it can't be every man for himself.

"Once you throw down the gauntlet and say, 'You know what, we don't care how long your official visits are or how far you travel once you're there, or how many color pages are in your media guides,' then the information on which prospects base their college decision becomes tilted," said Debi Gore-Mann, senior associate director of athletics at Stanford University. "If you loosen up the reins in any meaningful way, you create disparity."

Competitive-equity hurdle

Gore-Mann, who is a member of the recruiting subcommittee, said it wasn't a matter of the group not being willing to broach far-reaching reform. But every topic that came up was complicated by competitive-equity issues. Something as simple as letting the institution define the travel radius allowed to entertain a prospect met resistance from those who believe other schools would abuse the intent. Deregulating printed recruiting materials was problematic because of inequities in schools' technical resources. The phrase, "Well, at my conference, so and so will do that," became a mantra. Whenever the subcommittee took a blank-slate ap-
proach, competitive equity quickly filled the space.

"When you go through deregulation, you wonder if you should start with a blank piece of paper," said subcommittee Chair Scott Barnes, the athletics director at Eastern Washington University. "The notion of competitive equity is so tightly woven into the fabric of Bylaw 13 that the removal of any particular rule appeared threatening."

"Total deregulation in recruiting would create all sorts of problems," said Vanderbilt University Athletics Director Todd Turner, also a subcommittee member. "We live in the competitive world of intercollegiate athletics. Those institutions with the resources would use them to their full advantage and those without would be disadvantaged."

Subcommittee member Melanie Richardson, assistant athletics director at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said everyone wants to make certain their neighbor can't do more than they can.

"We could have gone back to doing whatever schools could afford to do, but there's been such a push to make sure Division I schools are on the same level that we couldn't open it up," she said.

The group did manage to open some things up in the technology realm, though. Subcommittee members thought that was one area where the rules hadn't kept up with the times. Two proposals move items previously produced or printed at significant cost to the Internet. Another puts parameters around the many kinds of electronic communication that have emerged over the last decade.

"We couldn't have deregulated technology in recruiting five or 10 years ago because it would have created advantages for those who could afford it," Gore-Mann said. "But now, PowerPoint, instant messaging and the like are so affordable -- and every high-school student has access to computers -- that deregulation in this area wasn't as big of a deal."

The proposal allowing the earlier contact also represents a significant change. Subcommittee members felt it would provide consistency among sports and increase recruiting flexibility without being unduly intrusive for prospects. Some members felt it would let prospects be exposed to colleges a little earlier and allow them to refine their selection pool sooner. The early contact also would prompt prospects to schedule their standardized tests on time and make sure they were on track academically.

While those changes would victories for deregulation, any proposal that was more global had higher hurdles to clear.

"There was some frustration because of the differences in sports, resources and the competitive nature of the business," Turner said. "It has been challenging at the very least to figure out how to manage recruiting and keep costs and competitive balance in perspective."

Are current rules working?

Another factor that can derail deregulation is the tendency for large segments of the NCAA membership to resist change. From the outset of the subcommittee's work, in fact, there were those in the membership who said the current recruiting structure was indeed operating as it should.

"There's a sense from some of the membership, even from some on the cabinet, that the recruiting rules are working and have leveled the playing field," Gore-Mann said. "The contact area, the quiet and dead periods -- all that is kind of working. Even though a high percentage of violations come in the contact area, most people believe the rules are structured properly."

Louisiana-Lafayette's Richardson said people tend to become more comfortable with the status quo once changes are proposed, even if those people were proponents of change initially.

"People develop a comfort level with the rules as they are, especially when you talk about changing them," Richardson said. "You listen to coaches and compliance coordinators and students, and each group will have some complaints about the current rules. But it's not until we discuss potential changes that people decide they like it the way it is."

Barnes, the subcommittee chair, said there also will need to be a comfort level with the subcommittee's proposals. He is encouraged, though, with the AEC Cabinet's support. The Management Council will provide the next test.

"This is uncharted territory," Barnes said. "But a primary measure is how the cabinet responded. Yes, we were able to warm them up to some of our proposals through education, but their response still was very supportive overall. That's a good first step."

Subcommittee members

Members of the AEC Cabinet subcommittee on recruiting:

Scott Barnes, director of athletics, Eastern Washington University, chair

Debi Gore-Mann, senior associate director of athletics, Stanford University

Bud Haidet, director of athletics, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Tracy Huth, associate director of athletics, Oakland University

Katie Groke, student-athlete, University of Wyoming

Bob Minnix, associate director of athletics, Florida State University

Melanie Richardson, assistant director of athletics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Todd Turner, director of athletics, Vanderbilt University

Craig Littlepage,* director of athletics, University of Virginia

Mike Matthews,* assistant commissioner, Pacific-10 Conference

Ronnie Carter,* president, National Federation of State High School Associations

John Black,* general counsel, National Federation of State High School Associations

David Price,* NCAA vice-president for enforcement services

* ad hoc member

Regulatory group probes trust issue

The competitive-equity concern in Division I often is seen as a "trust factor" that has inhibited other deregulation efforts in amateurism and financial aid.

But recruiting may be more susceptible to a lack of trust than any other issue. The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet subcommittee on recruiting tried to steel itself against that reality by establishing the following "core values" that guided its deliberations:

Recruiting rules should protect prospective student-athletes from undue pressures that may interfere with their scholastic and athletics endeavors.

Prospective student-athletes should have the opportunity to obtain the information they need to make an informed decision about their collegiate careers.

Institutions shall recruit prospective student-athletes who are, first and foremost, capable of attaining a degree.

Each institution shall administer its recruiting programs in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner.

Institutions should have fair opportunity to recruit prospective student-athletes regardless of the institution's size or wealth.

The last core value addresses competitive equity head-on, but subcommittee members still found the issue tough to tackle.

"Bylaw 13 is probably the most difficult to deregulate because of all the competing interests and nuances," said Mike Matthews, one of five ad hoc members the subcommittee engaged to assist in the project. Matthews, an assistant commissioner at the Pacific-10 Conference, said that in any deregulation process, no one is going to get everything they want.

"Everyone has their favorite rule," he said. "They have nine rules they want to delete but not the 10th one, and everyone's 10th rule is different. The competitive side of recruiting is just so hard."

Matthews is no stranger to deregulation, having provided counsel to various NCAA groups, particularly on Bylaw 13, for years in his role as the Pac-10 compliance officer. He's also no stranger to regulation, since he is a member of a recently appointed committee to study the "regulatory culture" in Division I. That group has been charged with encouraging Division I members to assume greater ownership in the adoption, interpretation, application and enforcement of legislation. Trust issues have been inherent in that group's discussions, and Matthews said if anyone can get at it, it just might be the regulatory culture panel.

He said the various deregulation efforts, which were initiated by the Board of Directors in 1999, were established before the regulatory culture group and thus were operating with the current environment in mind. Matthews said it's harder for the deregulation committees to take a global approach because they are limited by the bylaw they're deregulating.

"It's difficult to deregulate just one bylaw at a time," Matthews said. "You end up picking around the edges. And with our Manual, there are things that intertwine Bylaw 13 with 14 and 15, 17 with 13 and so on. Sometimes in order to really deregulate, you'd have to take a bigger bite than you're prepared to do.

"The regulatory culture group may have an opportunity to take an over-arching look at all the bylaws, whereas the deregulation groups are looking at their charge bylaw by bylaw."

Whether the regulatory culture group can somehow soften the trust factor in Division I remains to be seen. In the meantime, Matthews said the recruiting subcommittee did the best it could under the circumstances.

"The subcommittee had its work cut out for it, and it came forward with some pretty good proposals," he said. "There's always going to have to be some compromises. They took their best shot to come up with the compromises they thought people could live with."

-- Gary T. Brown